The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Denelson83[edit]

(36/4/0) ending 18:22 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Denelson83 (talk · contribs) – Denelson83 has made numerous edits to the English Wikipedia, and I feel he will be a fine administrator. I've known him on IRC for a while, and I see no reason not to give him the sacred mop. In the interest of full disclosure, he currently has 6809 edits, two failed RFAs (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Denelson83/first and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Denelson83), which failed due to an RFC filed on him (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Denelson83), but I think that's far enough behind us now. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. The third time could be the charm.  Denelson83  18:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Supportize as nominator. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Denelson seems to have modified his behavior since the last RfA. Go Denelson83! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Dedicated user.  BD2412 ^talk 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Good User I think 3rd time is going to be the charm --JAranda | yeah 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Guettarda 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Seen him around using good judgment and being reasonable. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. What is in the past is in the past. Good luck, Denelson. -- Essjay · Talk 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. IMHO, a valuable contributor. IceKarmaॐ 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Private Butcher 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Has recognized and worked hard to address past mistakes. --Scimitar ^parley 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong support as per last time. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. --Fire Star 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strongest Possible Support He definately knows his stuff, and despite what he went through, which would have soured many people on the project, he grew from it. I'm proud to be a fellow "Aspergian" and I'm sorry I got beaten to the punch in the nomination process. Karmafist 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Has stuck around despite the criticism from before, has learnt from it and made changes as a result of it. More admins should do that, and adding a knowledgeable, experienced user to the sysop list can only be a good thing. -Splash^talk 02:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, per Splash. I opposed on his previous RfAs, but he's gone out of his way to improve and seems like he has gotten much better at handling criticism. Most people would have run away from such objections, but he's still here and has improved. I think we need to reward him for that by making him an admin; he's earned it! --Idont Havaname 04:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Sup Port. I was neutral last time, since it was still too close to a RFC, but Denelson has kept his nose clean since, and I see no reason not to support. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support well done on sticking around and working on dialogue. Dlyons493 Talk 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Though I opposed previously, user seemed very interested in improvement, and has since done so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support byegones be byegones. Alf ^melmac 15:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support freestylefrappe 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I could have sworn he already was an op, he definately has the experience and the attitude to be one. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. After the RfC incident months ago, he has shown an unbending commitment to being civil with other editors, instead of just becoming bitter and argumentative like many other editors would do. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 12:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Extreme Autistic Spectrum Support! Having Asperger's too (but being less lucky than you, my temper is getting me on the wrong side of Wikipedia right now), I know what it's like. Denelson83 is a pretty good guy. He has his flaws, but so do I (and I have them much worse, I'll admit it). Nobody's perfect. Overall, Denelson rocks! :D->-< --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs Happy Birthday to #4! 22:21, 10 October 2005 (CDT)}
30. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 12:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Yup gkhan 17:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Proto t c 08:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. After you gave me your vote I went and looked at your credentials and everything looks good to me. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. We all make mistakes from time to time, but after reviewing the recent history of this editor I am convinced this person would make a fine sysop. Hall Monitor 22:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Opposed Friday's RfA because the user was once "uncivil" and therefore, says Denelson83, can never have a clean reputation. Needs to learn more about Wikiquette, how it is applied, and how to judge others. Andre (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Has since re-evaluated that situation, but I still feel uncomfortable about supporting. Andre (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Andre. android79 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Weak oppose. There were quite a number of objections on his second RFA that had not been addressed then, and I see no evidence that they have been addressed now. Radiant_>|< 12:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   (copyied from my talk page, responding here) Radiant_>|< 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I see you voted to oppose my adminship nomination because I had not fixed certain objections raised on my last RfA. Could you please tell me what they are so I can endeavour to fix them? I really want to show that I'm on Wikipedia's good side.  Denelson83  15:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   • I appreciate you wanting to clear this up. In particular, the suggestion that you may be volatile, and may have problems interacting with other users since you may have trouble understanding them. Please note that I am not speaking from personal experience with you, as I don't think we've crossed paths in the past months. I'm not saying that you haven't improved, I'm just saying that I haven't seen it, and I found it a bit strange that nobody on this RFA really mentioned it. Radiant_>|< 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I expressed in the candidate question section below that I can funnel any negative emotions generated from "bad" messages into the wikimood on my user page. That will allow me to respond to such messages in a civil manner. I did not know how to react to such messages at the time of my last RfA, but I do believe I have remedied that problem.  Denelson83  19:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose quite strongly. Denelson, while well-intentioned, is immature, prickly and quick to anger. His behavior on IRC is a consistent source of irritation, and does not demonstrate that he has fully addressed the issues of his RFC. — Dan | Talk 07:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   How am I being irritating? Is it because I just said one comment on #wikipedia that expressed my opinion on a very controversial subject, or did I build this up over time? Please help me to fix this.  Denelson83  08:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

• I want to be able to trust an administrator to take the right action when made aware of copyright infringement. I cannot trust this editor to do so after reading his response to the RfC. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Individual admins don't do all of the superior functions on Wikipedia, such as tagging copyvios, blocking vandals, or protecting pages. Heck, some admins just continue acting as regular editors. On this basis, I won't take any action on copyright violations, unless somebody notifies me. I will let the senior admins continue with that responsibility. Besides, the comment I made on my RfC pertained to possibly copyrighted images, not articles.  Denelson83  05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply. I don't think this takes either copyright or Wikipedia seriously. We have a legal obligation to do so. Should there ever be a Wikipedia copyright case, the matter of Wikipedia's policy of delegating most of the grunt work to untrained, unsupervised administrators would inevitably arise, and then we can ill afford the possibility of administrators turning a blind eye to obvious infringements. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I'll admit right now that the only way I know how to handle alleged copyvios would be simply to flag 'em and list 'em. I really frown on unilateral admin actions on Wikipedia, such as deleting copyvios immediately on sight. They have to be sent to the community at large first.  Denelson83  05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've been too hard on Denelson about something that he said some time ago. I'm withdrawing. No vote at all. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'm hoping to guard the Sailor Moon series of articles from any vandalism, as that is one of my greatest passions. That "rollback" feature may come in handy if I spot any vandalism against any of those articles. I have done a few rounds of RC patrol in the past, and I hope to be able to act on the speedy deletion candidates on my own instead of simply having to tag them and wait for them to be deleted.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I was the creator of the article series on British Columbia provincial highways. I put in all of those articles single-handedly, and that certainly qualifies as a significant achievement on Wikipedia. I also put in articles on WWV and WWVH, albeit anonymously, as I had not yet signed up for an account when I created those articles. I also made the Template:CSS IPA vowel chart for the article series on the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is no small feat per se. I also started up the Canada WikiPortal and the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Other articles that I worked on include the consolidated country code lists, e.g. Country codes: A, as well as Canadian postal code, which I completely overhauled and added a useful map to.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. The aforementioned RfC details my most recent incident of incivility. That happened about half a year ago, when I decided I did not want any negative messages on my talk page. As a remedy, I no longer touch my talk page, and I funnel any bad emotions that result from negative messages into the "wikimood" meter on my user page. That should keep me civil everywhere else. If I am made an administrator, I will assure you that if my wikimood is at -3 or below, I will not use any of the admin functions until my wikimood improves.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.